Andy Clark wrote: > > Edwin Goei wrote: > > So far I've just done a quick scan and I need to go to a dr appt now so > > I'll think about it some more later. One comment is that the main > > source for the javax.xml.parsers code actually lives in xml-commons. > > This allows other parsers to share that code easily. Your changes > > create a Xerces2 specific version with a dependency on Xerces2 code > > which would make maintenance more difficult. > > Well, for what I want to do, the FactoryFinder class can't be > used. It would be useful to have a generic way to dynamically > instantiate objects like the ObjectFactory class I've made. I > have no problem keeping it in commons but it needs to be in a > different place than javax.xml.parsers. > > I can leave the JAXP implemenation unchanged and still do what > I need to do but it would be nice if we re-use code. What do > you think?
Yeah, I agree, but I think we need to take an approach which is least bad here. I think duplicating code is least bad. The protected FactoryFinder class is duplicated already in javax.xml.parsers and javax..transform b/c we don't want it to be exposed as part of JAXP. It may be a good idea to add comments to ObjectFactory and FactoryFinder explaining this, so that if there are future bug fixes in the code, they can be propogated to the other copies. I believe there are comments in the two FactoryFinder classes to this effect already. This will allow anyone else who wants to implement JAXP to take the code from xml-commons and not depend on code in Xerces2. I guess an alternative would be to move the ObjectFactory code into xml-commons, but that has other disadvantages. -Edwin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
